Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'
Comments
-
In order to avert some disaster, you must first be able to anticipate it.Civil war, my ass. The only agression and threat was from the Russians with no insignia.
If you accept that ;
1.Crimeans remained loyal to the previous regime and never recognised the legitimacy of the Maidan coup.
2. Armed Crimeans formed self-defense squads to surround their civic buildings. They set up road blocks to prevent any "fascist thugs" from coming into the area.
3. The Maidan nationalists would eventually control the Ukrainian army and order a crackdown on the "dissidents" to "restore order" in Crimea.
Then;
4. The fighting would soon have spread to Donetsk and other eastern cities.
5. All-out civil war.
Putin and Obama would clandestinely supply arms and funds to the opposing sides. The UN would do nothing, because Obama and Putin veto each others proposals. Eventually, when the country is destroyed, Obama offers to send in "peacekeepers" plus some cash for the surviving nationalists if they allow certain American "defence shield" installations to be built around what's left of the country.0 -
In order to avert some disaster, you must first be able to anticipate it.
If you accept that ;
1.Crimeans remained loyal to the previous regime and never recognised the legitimacy of the Maidan coup.
2. Armed Crimeans formed self-defense squads to surround their civic buildings. They set up road blocks to prevent any "fascist thugs" from coming into the area.
3. The Maidan nationalists would eventually control the Ukrainian army and order a crackdown on the "dissidents" to "restore order" in Crimea.
Then;
4. The fighting would soon have spread to Donetsk and other eastern cities.
5. All-out civil war.
Putin and Obama would clandestinely supply arms and funds to the opposing sides. The UN would do nothing, because Obama and Putin veto each others proposals. Eventually, when the country is destroyed, Obama offers to send in "peacekeepers" plus some cash for the surviving nationalists if they allow certain American "defence shield" installations to be built around what's left of the country.
This may be true or it may be bull****, but in the final analysis is it wrong to invade another sovereign state and that is all there is too it.
What the West can or can't do to prevent it is secondary to that first point.0 -
That does sound depressingly accurate. It would be happily miraculous if this current stand off avoided civil war though. Unless you can no longer call such an eventuality civil war since the annex? I tell ya what though, this unfolding potential for a proper, all-out war is making me think of coaching my boys in how to fail an army psych test (one of them should have no problem).
Too soon to worry? Christ, I just don't trust humans to stay out of a war path.0 -
Obama's shown himself to be weak at home and abroad, Putin is making hay while he can.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Obama's shown himself to be weak at home and abroad, Putin is making hay while he can.
How do you mean? What should he have done different - just start the war already, is it?! I mean, look how well that worked out before! Do you WANT Obama to do more than shout from the other side of the world in his super-broke country?
What exactly can any country do, peaceably, that they're not doing? How much do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot? Until we have actually shot our foot off, or shall we just stand around threatening to shoot our foot off (ie. sanctions, thereby sanctioning our own fuel supply/costs)?
Sorry Button - do not take personally. I just have all these questions when someone makes a statement that doesn't answer any of mine
0 -
Advertisement
-
In order to avert some disaster, you must first be able to anticipate it.
If you accept that ;
1.Crimeans remained loyal to the previous regime and never recognised the legitimacy of the Maidan coup.
Some Crimeans.2. Armed Crimeans formed self-defense squads to surround their civic buildings. They set up road blocks to prevent any "fascist thugs" from coming into the area.
No fascist thugs except in Poot's imagination.
'Armed Crimeans' were either Russians or armed by Russia.3. The Maidan nationalists would eventually control the Ukrainian army and order a crackdown on the "dissidents" to "restore order" in Crimea.
Legitimate government would eventually order a crackdown on armed insurrectionists - yes, of course, unless they're so terrified of their thug of a neighbour they can't even defend their own military bases.Then;
4. The fighting would soon have spread to Donetsk and other eastern cities.
5. All-out civil war.
If there was going to be a war it is very clear who provoked it. Kiev has gone to great lengths to avoid conflict in spite of clear acts of aggression, provocation and invasion by Russia. Once the shooting had started, even if he'd fired first, Putin would have used it as a pretext to steamroller over whatever areas of Ukraine he wanted, just like he did to Georgia.Putin and Obama would clandestinely supply arms and funds to the opposing sides.
Nothing clandestine about what Putin did and is doing, except to those who refuse to see it.
Obama will do nothing, like the West did with Georgia, like Czechoslovakia 1968 or Hungary 1956 or East Berlin 1953 or Sudetenland 1938. Only a fool would start a war they cannot win.The UN would do nothing, because Obama and Putin veto each others proposals. Eventually, when the country is destroyed, Obama offers to send in "peacekeepers" plus some cash for the surviving nationalists if they allow certain American "defence shield" installations to be built around what's left of the country.
Well, that nonsense makes your thinking clearer.
Putin would just veto the peacekeepers (why danger quotes? Actual Russian invaders you are OK with, however.)
No western defence installations can go into Ukraine, it's not a NATO member, and if Putin hadn't already provoked a war that would certainly do it.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
And then what? You don't even have to use your imagination because... one word; Syria.Legitimate government would eventually order a crackdown on armed insurrectionists - yes, of course
Are you joking? You do realise that when Georgia started the war in South Ossetia they were fully trained, funded, equipped and advised by the US. There is doubt about how many US servicemen were in Georgia because the Georgian troops were using US pattern uniforms.Obama will do nothing, like the West did with Georgia.... Only a fool would start a war they cannot win.
Link
Just to enlighten you as to the purpose of this "Great Game" in Ukraine. From the Nato point of view it is to recruit Ukraine as a member. And from the Russian point of view, to prevent that.Well, that nonsense makes your thinking clearer...
No western defence installations can go into Ukraine, it's not a NATO member
In Maidan, there were street kiosks in which people could sign up their names and receive US$25 in cash to protest. More if they got into any fighting. There are numerous foreign gunmen walking around there openly, believed to be American "private contractors".
Nato signed up three former Warsaw Pact countries in 1999; Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, and immediately tried to install "missile shields" (which turned out to be unacceptable to the people there) but that story is not over yet.
link0 -
In Maidan, there were street kiosks in which people could sign up their names and receive US$25 in cash to protest. More if they got into any fighting. There are numerous foreign gunmen walking around there openly, believed to be American "private contractors".
Where did you hear that - Russia Today?Life ain't always empty.
0 -
No, from someone who was there.0
-
Right. You don't think that an utterly corrupt, authoritarian and incompetent president leading them back into being a vassal of Russia wasn't something worth protesting about?
Rob was there recently. I'll await his verdict on the credibility of what you've posted but it's not looking at all good so far.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ok somebody feed pls after sorting out all those posts.:o0
-
-
Three is no agreement over who started the conflict in South Ossettia - from my understanding of what happened, it seems most likely that one or other of the ongoing low-level skirmishes (initiated by both sides, btw) got out of hand and triggered the wider conflict that both sides appeared to wish for - Russia for an opportunity to enforce its regional hegemony by destabilizing Georgia and delivering two-fingers to "the west", and Georgia, with what it incorrectly believed was political support from NATO, to recover the province of South Ossettia which Russia had de-facto annexed some years before. Georgia obviously got its ass kicked and lost both South Ossettia (which I haven't visited) and Abkhazia (which I have), with both regions now turning into "frozen conflicts", a twilight state which is likely to last for decades.Are you joking? You do realise that when Georgia started the war in South Ossetia they were fully trained, funded, equipped and advised by the US.
Well, during my six days in Kiev watching the Maidan protests turn from peaceful to violent from February 13th to 18th, I saw no kiosks where people could sign up to anything. Which isn't to say that they weren't there, or that people weren't being paid to protest -- I just didn't see any. There were plenty of money collection boxes and these were taking in quite a lot of cash - finger in the air, I'd have said a few hundred euro a day per box at the few boxes that I'd pass by regularly. Following up back here at home on this persistent "paid-to-protest" meme, I'm afraid that I couldn't find any convincing evidence of any payments being made at all - friends of friends who were protesting where there either because they were unemployed and had nothing better to do, else they were students taking time off from university or college. Ukrainians here in Dublin also denied that any US payments were being made and pointed out that they were paying significant amounts of cash (several hundred euro per month) themselves. Neither have I been able to locate any evidence of any significant level of EU or US state-level funding to any group, moderate or otherwise. I would be most interested if you could provide any evidence of this yourself that does not come, directly or indirectly, from a source funded by the Russian government (RT.com, informationclearinghouse, globalresearch.ca etc). The only encouragement to stay out and protest that I could see was (a) a great sense of cameraderie; (b) the sense that something really good might come out of all of this and (c) the large amount of food that was prepared and which seemed to be handed out free of charge to anybody - I didn't have any myself though it smelled and looked fine in a "prepared on the street in a huge tub" kind of way.In Maidan, there were street kiosks in which people could sign up their names and receive US$25 in cash to protest. More if they got into any fighting. There are numerous foreign gunmen walking around there openly, believed to be American "private contractors".
I did not see "numerous foreign gunmen", American or otherwise. On the contrary, there were very few non-slavic foreigners at Maidan - foreigners are easily identifiable in slavic countries and during my six days there, and ignoring the Irish pub, I heard English being spoken once when I gave directions to small group of lost US students close to the MacDonalds on Maidan. Neither did I hear anybody speaking non-native level Russian (I speak mid-level Russian myself and I feel confident enough that I can identify the majority of non-native speakers from accent). And as for "gunmen", well, in six days I once saw two guys and one girl with a single pellet gun shooting cans just beyond the south-western tip of the Maidan perimeter on Kreshatik. When the protests turned violent on Ulitsa Institutska, I heard gunshots on several occasions near where I was standing, but could not see who was shooting, nor could I identify what was being shot (pellets, blanks or live rounds), nor in what direction (I have videos of this which I took myself). I did see one protestor being shot with a rubber bullet on Institutska, where multiple protests were shot in the hours after I left, and some were killed. I also saw a number of men with bloody headwounds walking into the Trades' Union building overlooking Maidan, the same building that was burned out later that evening, most likely by riot police who broke into it.
tl;dr - I'm afraid that on the evidence of my own eyes, ears and friends I can't really accept any of your claims. Also, I can't help but notice that they appear similar or identical to unsupported claims repeatedly made by the Russian government and used by it to justify the invasion and annexation of Crimea and a possible future invasion and annexation of East Ukraine.
BTW, just to include a link to it, in terms of the sequence of events, especially with repsect to the first events in Crimea following Yanokovich's departure and the conditions under which the "referendum" were held, the UK government's response to Putin's self-congratulatory speech last week is accurate and illuminating. Also worth noting that a few weeks before the "referendum", only 41% supported joining Russia and not the 97% that the Russian government expects people to believe.0 -
To save time I'm going to make use of wiki in response, and although I admit it is is not "the undisputed truth" nevertheless, it is considered to be "conventional wisdom". So if you are going to dispute facts therein, I think its fair to place the burden of proof on you.Three is no agreement over who started the conflict in South Ossettia - from my understanding of what happened, it seems most likely that one or other of the ongoing low-level skirmishes (initiated by both sides, btw) got out of hand and triggered the wider conflict..
South Ossetia
South Ossetians succeeded in their efforts. Then after a multi-million dollar retraining and re-equipping program by the US govt. Georgia again tried to regain the territory. In 2008 Georgia launched a full scale military invasion.South Ossetians declared independence from Georgia in 1990, calling themselves the Republic of South Ossetia. The Georgian government responded by abolishing South Ossetia's autonomy and trying to re-establish its control over the region by force. The crisis escalation led to the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War.
The UK govt. is hardly an unbiased source. The comment in that link re Kosovo appears to be a blatant lie;... the UK government's response to Putin's self-congratulatory speech last week is accurate and illuminating...
My memory of those events was of a Nato bombing of Serbia which failed to get UN backing, much like the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Checking wiki quickly, I get this;Kosovo’s eventual independence came about through a long, inclusive, internationally-sanctioned process, under the auspices of a UN Security Council Resolution, reaching an agreed political settlement.
So if you agree with Cameron on this, can you tell me which specific UN resolution called for the bombing of Serbia and the consequent secession of Kosovo?Between 24 March and 10 June 1999, NATO intervened by bombing Yugoslavia aimed to force Milošević to withdraw his forces from Kosovo, though NATO could not appeal to any particular motion of the Security Council of the United Nations to help legitimise its intervention.
Re opinion polls, a wise man once said that the only one that counts is the final one in the polling booth.Also worth noting that a few weeks before the "referendum", only 41% supported joining Russia and not the 97% that the Russian government expects people to believe
There is no doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine increased as time went on and the "rainbow" coalition of the far right in Kiev began to implement their far right policies. That is, the neo-nazi thugs of the Svoboda (Freedom) party and the more subtle private financial interests of the Batkivschina (Fatherland) party controlled by multi million dollar "gas princess" herself, Yulia Tymoshenko. I'm sure you have seen the recent TV footage of these Svoboda elected representatives beating up journalists etc.. And now that their stormtrooper paramilitary wing seems to have acquired immunity from the law which allows them to beat up Ukrainian Police in the streets, and walk away from an attempted bank robbery without being pursued by the law, they are an even more worrying blight on the political landscape. I am referring specifically to those collectively known as "Right Sector". The first casualty in these situations is always truth itself, so I suggest we wait and see what evidence emerges re the Kiev regime. Also the presence of alleged US contractors is unverified, but subterfuge is often the nature of the beast.Also worth noting that a few weeks before the "referendum", only 41% supported joining Russia and not the 97% that the Russian government expects people to believe.
Here's a link to an opinion poll with a completely different take to yours, which translates as;
I have no idea whether it is any more reliable than yours. All I'm saying is, you would want to be careful when quoting opinion polls, because there are no guarantees that come with them.In anticipation of the referendum on the status of Crimea , scheduled for March 16, the Institute for European Policy Studies conducted a survey among residents of the Crimean Autonomy and Sevastopol. The survey polled 2,500 people .
Respondents were asked the same questions that are put to a referendum : "Do you support the reunification of the Crimea with Russia on the rights of the subject of the Russian Federation? " Or "Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine ? ".
The survey showed that more than 80 % of respondents in favor of reunification with Russia Crimean autonomy .
In particular, according to the survey , 87 % of residents were in favor of Simferopol "for" entry into the Russian Crimea , Yalta - 81 % , Feodosia - 79 % Jankoi - 82 % , Kerch - 84 % Index - 83%.
Residents of Sevastopol almost unanimously say that Crimea should become Russia ( 92%).0 -
To save time I'm going to make use of wiki in response, and although I admit it is is not "the undisputed truth" nevertheless, it is considered to be "conventional wisdom". So if you are going to dispute facts therein, I think its fair to place the burden of proof on you.
South Ossetia South Ossetians succeeded in their efforts. Then after a multi-million dollar retraining and re-equipping program by the US govt. Georgia again tried to regain the territory. In 2008 Georgia launched a full scale military invasion.
The UK govt. is hardly an unbiased source. The comment in that link re Kosovo appears to be a blatant lie; My memory of those events was of a Nato bombing of Serbia which failed to get UN backing, much like the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Checking wiki quickly, I get this; So if you agree with Cameron on this, can you tell me which specific UN resolution called for the bombing of Serbia and the consequent secession of Kosovo?
Re opinion polls, a wise man once said that the only one that counts is the final one in the polling booth.
There is no doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine increased as time went on and the "rainbow" coalition of the far right in Kiev began to implement their far right policies. That is, the neo-nazi thugs of the Svoboda (Freedom) party and the more subtle private financial interests of the Batkivschina (Fatherland) party controlled by multi million dollar "gas princess" herself, Yulia Tymoshenko. I'm sure you have seen the recent TV footage of these Svoboda elected representatives beating up journalists etc.. And now that their stormtrooper paramilitary wing seems to have acquired immunity from the law which allows them to beat up Ukrainian Police in the streets, and walk away from an attempted bank robbery without being pursued by the law, they are an even more worrying blight on the political landscape. I am referring specifically to those collectively known as "Right Sector". The first casualty in these situations is always truth itself, so I suggest we wait and see what evidence emerges re the Kiev regime. Also the presence of alleged US contractors is unverified, but subterfuge is often the nature of the beast.
Here's a link to an opinion poll with a completely different take to yours, which translates as;
I have no idea whether it is any more reliable than yours. All I'm saying is, you would want to be careful when quoting opinion polls, because there are no guarantees that come with them.
This is all irrelevant and I cannot for the life of me understand how you in anyway condone Russia's actions.
They invaded a sovereign state , end of . There are no ifs ands or buts .0 -
Without going over the whole thing again, the Crimeans, in refusing to accept the authority of Kiev, had already seceded. The Russians for the most part were already there (by longstanding agreement with Ukraine to have 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea)
So this is really about whether you think a small country (or a region, depending on which side of the fence you sit) has the right to declare it's independence from a large country. In other words, do the people who live there have the right to self-determination?0 -
Without going over the whole thing again, the Crimeans, in refusing to accept the authority of Kiev, had already seceded. The Russians for the most part were already there (by longstanding agreement with Ukraine to have 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea)
So this is really about whether you think a small country (or a region, depending on which side of the fence you sit) has the right to declare it's independence from a large country. In other words, do the people who live there have the right to self-determination?
Not meaning to be offensive but this is just absolute twaddle. What ever the internal problems of any country it is never justification for another country to invade.
This is the 21st century not the 19th.0 -
In response, as I implied above, to repeated incursions and provocations. Same as they'd been doing to the Russians. Both sides were to blame for the ignition of the conflict and both sides, adhering to the same general military principles, were responsible for the escalation into full-blown war.In 2008 Georgia launched a full scale military invasion.
A source's bias is irrelevant when it -- as I pointed out above -- is accurate.The UK govt. is hardly an unbiased source.
You can find this authorization on page 2 and 3, points 7, 8 and 9 of Resolution 1244 of 1999. The text is here if you're interested. Note specifically that the text refers to peace "enforcement" and that the text was approved by Russia -- something that the current Russian government's propaganda machine ignores.The comment in that link re Kosovo appears to be a blatant lie; My memory of those events was of a Nato bombing of Serbia which failed to get UN backing, much like the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. [...] can you tell me which specific UN resolution called for the bombing of Serbia and the consequent secession of Kosovo?
Some of which is true, some of which I have seen, and all of which I heartily condemn. Still, how do you reckon these minor crimes stack up against the theft of an entire province at gunpoint?[...] That is, the neo-nazi thugs of the Svoboda (Freedom) party and the more subtle private financial interests of the Batkivschina (Fatherland) party controlled by multi million dollar "gas princess" herself, Yulia Tymoshenko. I'm sure you have seen the recent TV footage of these Svoboda elected representatives beating up journalists etc.. And now that their stormtrooper paramilitary wing seems to have acquired immunity from the law which allows them to beat up Ukrainian Police in the streets, and walk away from an attempted bank robbery without being pursued by the law, [...]
Is it really ok for Putin to conjure up a motive that is transparently and demonstrably false, have his supporters invade a parliament, appoint their own puppet at gunpoint, have the puppet call a "referendum", invade the province, rig the referendum, then annex the place? Are you really ok with all of that?0 -
Again, you are producing, almost verbatim, a series of standard RT propaganda points. Just to reject these untrue false -- and frankly, quite irritating -- claims again:Without going over the whole thing again, the Crimeans, in refusing to accept the authority of Kiev, had already seceded. The Russians for the most part were already there (by longstanding agreement with Ukraine to have 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea)
Late in the night of the 26th of February, the Crimean parliament was seized by Russian-supporting gunmen, who forced parliamentarians to vote to remove Anatoly Mogilyov, the prime minster at the time. The gunmen then forced the parliament to appoint Sergei Aksyonov, head of the Russian Unity party, as prime minster. Aksyonov is widely suspected of having multiple links to organized crime. He called a "referendum" which was boycotted by substantial portions of the population; which was carried out with no time for debate; in which most popular Ukrainian media were banned; where his own media radicalized the debate well past dangerous extremes; and which was carried out in the presence of a marauding foreign army.
Under Ukrainian law, any region can secede to long as a majority of the votes cast in a suitable referendum of the entire country agrees. A region cannot secede by itself for the same reason that you can't vote to secede from Ireland and expect to have your vote taken seriously. No nation-wide secession referendum obviously took place, so Crimea's vote to secede is illegal. Quite apart from the criminal conditions under which Aksyonov assumed his position.
Yes, there were Russian troops in Crimea and by treaty with Kiev, these were confined to barracks. They were obviously not confined to barracks and roamed the countryside freely, doing what they wanted to in total violation of international law as well as local treaty. Finally, there were multiple treaties between Russia and Ukraine which guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity and Russia has merrily ignored all of them.
Now, I've no idea, recedite, whether you think that international treaties are important. From your failure to address any of them (are you aware of them?) I'm inclined to think you don't care about them at all. Nor do you appear to be concerned that a nuclear-armed state feels it wise to invade a peaceful neighbour on a false pretext which applies to many other nations. Nor do you appear concerned about the military build up to the east of Ukraine or about the open encouragement of Russian ethnic nationalism on a broad swathe from the Baltics to the Black Sea.
They're part of the RF now. They have no right to "self-determination".In other words, do the people who live there have the right to self-determination?0 -
Advertisement
-
Late in the night of the 26th of February, the Crimean parliament was seized by Russian-supporting gunmen, who forced parliamentarians to vote to remove Anatoly Mogilyov, the prime minster at the time. The gunmen then forced the parliament to appoint Sergei Aksyonov, head of the Russian Unity party, as prime minster.
Some would say that the previous Crimean PM, Mr. Mogilyov, was an appointee of the previous Ukrainian President, Mr Yanukovych and therefore he was tainted with corruption. And that he was voted out of office by a free parliamentary vote, while an angry crowd waited outside.
The people of Britain did not vote to allow Ireland to secede as an independent republic, nor the USA, yet here we all are. A fait accompli is just that.A region cannot secede by itself for the same reason that you can't vote to secede from Ireland and expect to have your vote taken seriously. No nation-wide secession referendum obviously took place, so Crimea's vote to secede is illegal.0 -
Some would say that the previous Crimean PM, Mr. Mogilyov, was an appointee of the previous Ukrainian President, Mr Yanukovych and therefore he was tainted with corruption. And that he was voted out of office by a free parliamentary vote, while an angry crowd waited outside.
The people of Britain did not vote to allow Ireland to secede as an independent republic, nor the USA, yet here we all are. A fait accompli is just that.
In other words 'might is right' ?0 -
Resolution 1244 came after the Nato bombing, and its purpose was to authorize peacekeepers and police to pick up the pieces, and allow refugees to return home. Irish personnel participated.A source's bias is irrelevant when it -- as I pointed out above -- is accurate.You can find this authorization on page 2 and 3, points 7, 8 and 9 of Resolution 1244 of 1999.0 -
-
The UK passed a law recognising Irish independence, in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. When there's a constitutional process for secession, it makes sense to at least attempt to use that process.The people of Britain did not vote to allow Ireland to secede as an independent republic, nor the USA, yet here we all are. A fait accompli is just that.0 -
No, in other words the land belongs to the people who live there. They are the ones who should get to say whether they secede or not.
You must be joking or on something if you really believe this. If the inhabitants of Moscow held a plebiscite to secede and it passed would that be ok then ? Or London or Leinster ?0 -
Retrospectively, after independence was achieved on the ground.oscarBravo wrote: »The UK passed a law recognising Irish independence..
No doubt Ukraine will do the same in regard to Crimea, eventually.0 -
Again, you are producing, almost verbatim, a series of standard RT propaganda points. Just to reject these untrue false -- and frankly, quite irritating -- claims again:
Late in the night of the 26th of February, the Crimean parliament was seized by Russian-supporting gunmen, who forced parliamentarians to vote to remove Anatoly Mogilyov, the prime minster at the time. The gunmen then forced the parliament to appoint Sergei Aksyonov, head of the Russian Unity party, as prime minster. Aksyonov is widely suspected of having multiple links to organized crime. He called a "referendum" which was boycotted by substantial portions of the population; which was carried out with no time for debate; in which most popular Ukrainian media were banned; where his own media radicalized the debate well past dangerous extremes; and which was carried out in the presence of a marauding foreign army.
Under Ukrainian law, any region can secede to long as a majority of the votes cast in a suitable referendum of the entire country agrees. A region cannot secede by itself for the same reason that you can't vote to secede from Ireland and expect to have your vote taken seriously. No nation-wide secession referendum obviously took place, so Crimea's vote to secede is illegal. Quite apart from the criminal conditions under which Aksyonov assumed his position.
Yes, there were Russian troops in Crimea and by treaty with Kiev, these were confined to barracks. They were obviously not confined to barracks and roamed the countryside freely, doing what they wanted to in total violation of international law as well as local treaty. Finally, there were multiple treaties between Russia and Ukraine which guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity and Russia has merrily ignored all of them.
Now, I've no idea, recedite, whether you think that international treaties are important. From your failure to address any of them (are you aware of them?) I'm inclined to think you don't care about them at all. Nor do you appear to be concerned that a nuclear-armed state feels it wise to invade a peaceful neighbour on a false pretext which applies to many other nations. Nor do you appear concerned about the military build up to the east of Ukraine or about the open encouragement of Russian ethnic nationalism on a broad swathe from the Baltics to the Black Sea.They're part of the RF now. They have no right to "self-determination".
I think recedite's cheerleading for Putin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen has more to do with the variation of "four legs good, two legs bad" current in certain sections of the western left, which posits everything done by the US as bad, and everything done which can be spun as being in opposition to the US as good, than any proper reading of the situation at hand. Yes the US, UK and other NATO countries are a mass bunch of hypocrites, but that doesn't make Putin any less evil or the need to stop him any less urgent.
We are at the verge of having another Hitler on our hands right at this very moment, and the Ukraine is the Czecho-Slovakia of the early 21st century.0 -
No, in other words the land belongs to the people who live there. They are the ones who should get to say whether they secede or not.
So why are the Tartars being forced out of their own country by Russia then? It's their land by hundred's of years of occupation and rule after all.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tatars are not being forced out. They were unjustly deported by Stalin, and their descendants have been drifting back more recently to re-occupy their old lands as "squatters". This creates a messy situation. It is equivalent to an American born jew trying to reclaim an apartment in Berlin or Prague from a local family. Or a Lebanese-born "Palestinian" trying to reclaim land in the Israeli occupied territories. There is no easy answer. The answer that the ex-European jews came up with was "we got shafted, we are where we are, but we can still shaft someone else". But this option is not open to the Tatars.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement